(PS10-2) Acceptability, Feasibility, and Appropriateness of Skills for Psychological Recovery After Recent Sexual Assault: Perceptions of Stakeholders at Sexual Assault Advocacy Centers and Other Experts

Abstract Text: Sexual assault (SA) is alarmingly prevalent, impacting approximately 43% of women, 24% of men, and 47% of transgender/non-binary people in their lifetime. SA increases risk for a host of negative mental health outcomes including posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and substance misuse. Thus, accessible early interventions that can reduce risk for these outcomes are urgently needed. Skills for Psychological Recovery (SPR) is an early intervention that provides skills for coping with traumatic stress; it was originally designed for delivery after natural disasters. It can be delivered by paraprofessionals, lending itself to potential implementation in real-world settings, such as sexual assault advocacy centers (SAACs). However, SPR has not been evaluated following recent SA. As a first step in this line of research, we examined the feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of SPR after recent SA among 27 key stakeholders with experience in acute response and services for recent SA. We conducted four focus groups with SAAC staff across South Carolina (n=16) and interviews with additional experts, nationally, who provide acute mental health services following recent SA (n=11). Participants served in a wide range of professional roles, including victim advocates, outreach coordinators, therapists, psychologists, SA clinic directors, SAAC directors, and SA clinical research. Participants were primarily women (n=24) and all reported some college education or higher. Sixteen participants were white; nine were black. Three participants identified as Latino/a/x ethnicity. Average years of experience working with SA ranged from 1 to 29 years (Mean=5.3). All participants reviewed the SPR manual in depth and were provided with a PowerPoint presentation that overviewed the SPR model. Next, participants completed semi-structured interviews or focus groups about SPR and delivering SPR in SAAC settings. Finally, participants completed the feasibility of intervention (FIM) and intervention appropriateness measures (IAM). Participants who completed interviews also received the acceptability of intervention (AIM) measures. The FIM, IAM, and AIM are each four item scales with total average scores ranging from 0 to 5. Items were tailored to focus on delivering SPR after recent SA. Average total scale scores on each scale were calculated across participants, with higher scores indicating greater perceived feasibility, appropriateness and acceptability. Results indicated that delivering SPR for recent SA was perceived as feasible (mean FIM=4.45, SD=0.91) and appropriate (mean IAM=4.40, SD=0.79) among all participants. Among participants who also completed the AIM, SPR was rated as highly acceptable for application with people who experienced recent SA (mean AIM=4, SD=0.76). Results suggest that key stakeholders in response to recent SA perceive SPR as a promising potential early intervention that would be feasible and appropriate to deliver to people who experienced recent SA. Future research should assess perceptions of SPR among people who experienced recent SA to identify perceptions and potential adaptations and modifications needed to tailor SPR to this population and for implementation in SAAC settings.